HoosierFaithful

It is a server side issue related to a https error we have and how that relates with your individual browser settings, thus the variance between users.

We are in the process of some moves to fix this. I normally handle most of this but have been slammed at work for most of the past 3mo. Should be finally fixed within about a week.

Pre-trial diversion is much more of a slap on the wrist and it's what kids with drinking tickets during Little 5 get. Do your community service and it turns into a ticket. By virtue of being charged with a felony, he is likely not eligible for pre-trial diversion, which means he'll plea to a misdemeanor, which is an actual crime and will stay on his record.

My point is there is a distinct difference between pre-trial diversion (which I doubt he will get) and getting a plea deal (which is likely, and I agree, the felony likely drops to a misdemeanor).

This isn’t a pre-trial diversion meeting, it’s a pre-trial conference. They’re very different. Let one of the lawyers weigh in more than me, but I would not say it’s a guarantee he gets diversion when there is a felony on the table. He can likely still get a plea deal but they’re gonna take a bite out of his rear end.

I think a good many (maybe even all?) of the folks here I disagree with about this issue I can understand where you're coming from, even if it isn't how I view it. That is useful to expose ourselves to.

Having different views of how the country should be doesn't mean someone hates America.

that's like comparing me to TJD in a game of 1:1

... comparing the US government to the Afghan government is not a good faith argument.

People can think whatever they want, but the idea that you're gonna beat the government at a game of force has always been ludicrous to me, AR-15 or not.

You seem a bit aggressive - I am not sure I have the answer, but I'm not sure I'm required to in order to share my thoughts..?

Tasteless? You have a different opinion than me, and that's fine.

I'm not anti-police, or even anti-police at schools, I'm just pointing out how it doesn't seem to be a silver bullet. None of these solutions are.

But the good guys with a gun didn't stop the bad guy with a gun before he murdered people.

Armed, trained police confronted the attacker yesterday and didn't stop him. How are teachers supposed to?

My friend, you do the same thing all the time I didn't do the extensive research, but I don't think that was implying that the tweet was an exhaustive list of shootings where AR-15's were used.

Totally understand where you're coming from, we disagree but that's fine - I posted my original question because I wanted to hear what other people think, not to convince them 👊 To your point about school resource officers - the police were engaged with the shooter BEFORE he got to the school. A good guy with a gun (or several of them) didn't stop this, so why do we think a glorified security guard would? https://www.newsweek.com/officers-engaged-gunman-before-mass-shooting-1709870

To the claim of UBC's affecting only 1% of gun sales - that does not appear to be correct. It would affect between 13-22% of sales - https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2018/mar/16/steve-bullock/what-percentage-gun-sales-are-done-without-backgro/ I appreciate the hesitations people have, but this is a common-sense piece of legislation supported by, depending on what poll you read, 80-95% of Americans.

Good discussion here, but to ignore the striking similarity in these shootings is willful ignorance IMO - an AR-15 seems to be far and away the weapon of choice for mass shootings, perhaps we can find a way to make this all a wee bit harder to shoot 20 kids?

It's a distinction without a difference - an AR-15 or any semi-automatic still fires between 80-120 rounds per minute before bump stocks are included, and they're exceedingly easy to get (and a "high capacity magazine" was used in this shooting). That many rounds is about 100 too many.

That is refreshing to hear, especially from some folks I know I generally disagree on politics with.

I want to try to make this generally apolitical, but it's a political question, so please just keep that in mind and try to toe the line here for the sake of me learning about other's views. Would you support universal background checks? It seems to be the lowest common denominator of potential regulations that could/should be agreeable. I would hypothesize it can't get passed for structural/political reasons, not related to its relative agreeableness.

was away for the weekend, thank you my friend ^^

We are getting closer - as a temporary workaround, please navigate to the bottom of the forum and click to change your theme to "test default" and see if that fixes errors.

We are getting closer - as a temporary workaround, please navigate to the bottom of the forum and click to change your theme to "test default" and see if that fixes errors.